I think you forgot to explain how this guy is a scammer. You posted connections to several accounts that are alleged to be spammer. If he is evading a permanent ban then he will probably get banned, although sometimes some people who are permanently banned are allowed to come back, either under a new name or under their old name(s).

Exactly , they denied me for a campaign, I asked reason and they now say I think that I am entitled to join sig campaign. Hey come on, do I not deserve to know the reason ? They have interlinked a one time signature spam and trust abuse(deleted) with the scamming part. I ask a one single question :If I cut your earning source for an invalid reason, how will you react ? If I am a trust abuser who are you then ?

I think you forgot to explain how this guy is a scammer. You posted connections to several accounts that are alleged to be spammer.

Red trust doesn't always make someone a scammer, it shows that the person leaving the feedback doesn't trust the person recieving it. Lutpin has made his reasoning clear for the red mark in his feedback, as did Lauda.Would you trust someone that spams and ban evades, along with little trustworthy things to their name?

In addition, would you not consider somebody delivering a sub-par product for what you pay to be scamming? In that case, signature spamming and getting paid is scamming the owner.

Red trust doesn't always make someone a scammer, it shows that the person leaving the feedback doesn't trust the person recieving it. Lutpin has made his reasoning clear for the red mark in his feedback, as did Lauda.Would you trust someone that spams and ban evades, along with little trustworthy things to their name?

In addition, would you not consider somebody delivering a sub-par product for what you pay to be scamming? In that case, signature spamming and getting paid is scamming the owner.

Really ? Then why do you think I was given the name of trust abuser when I did same ? This is not something personal here .

Red trust doesn't always make someone a scammer, it shows that the person leaving the feedback doesn't trust the person recieving it. Lutpin has made his reasoning clear for the red mark in his feedback, as did Lauda.Would you trust someone that spams and ban evades, along with little trustworthy things to their name?

In addition, would you not consider somebody delivering a sub-par product for what you pay to be scamming? In that case, signature spamming and getting paid is scamming the owner.

Really ? Then why do you think I was given the name of trust abuser when I did same ? This is not something personal here .

Because that negative feedback had no justifiable reason behind it and therefore was abusing the system. Retaliatory feedback is usually a big no-no.

Irrelevant, and you were the one who had ignored everything Bitcoinsummoner had said to only reply with "RIP english". Certainly, someone has no clue, and it's not them. And that goes along with the fact that you use poor grammar and spelling so you're in no position to begin insulting other people's English skills.

Red trust doesn't always make someone a scammer, it shows that the person leaving the feedback doesn't trust the person recieving it. Lutpin has made his reasoning clear for the red mark in his feedback, as did Lauda.Would you trust someone that spams and ban evades, along with little trustworthy things to their name?

In addition, would you not consider somebody delivering a sub-par product for what you pay to be scamming? In that case, signature spamming and getting paid is scamming the owner.

Really ? Then why do you think I was given the name of trust abuser when I did same ? This is not something personal here .

Because that negative feedback had no justifiable reason behind it and therefore was abusing the system. Retaliatory feedback is usually a big no-no.

Irrelevant, and you were the one who had ignored everything Bitcoinsummoner had said to only reply with "RIP english". Certainly, someone has no clue, and it's not them. And that goes along with the fact that you use poor grammar and spelling so you're in no position to begin insulting other people's English skills.

Well If mine is not then they also do not have any relevance. Someone has got no clue and it definitely includes you. If you are that good at english then answer this query :

Show me a sentence where you can use two "in(s)" consecutively. Lets see who is poor.

I think you forgot to explain how this guy is a scammer. You posted connections to several accounts that are alleged to be spammer.

Red trust doesn't always make someone a scammer, it shows that the person leaving the feedback doesn't trust the person recieving it. Lutpin has made his reasoning clear for the red mark in his feedback, as did Lauda.Would you trust someone that spams and ban evades, along with little trustworthy things to their name?

Uh, yes, negative trust is meant for anyone who has scammed someone, who has attempted to scam someone, or who is believed to be a scammer:

Quote

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

The forum administration sometimes will allow someone to resume posting after being permanently banned after some amount of time has elapsed (depending on the amount of "trouble" the person previously caused), sometimes a new account is created, is allowed to continue posting, but the old account is not unbanned, and sometimes the old account(s) is unbanned.

None of the reasoning provided by either Lutpin nor Lauda give any insight to why the OP is a scammer, nor have they said anything along the lines of "trust me, this person is a scammer, but I cannot disclose how I know this" (this would only be used when someone is an alt of a scammer).

In addition, would you not consider somebody delivering a sub-par product for what you pay to be scamming? In that case, signature spamming and getting paid is scamming the owner.

Not in the OP's case, no (nor in the majority of other similar cases). It is my understanding that the OP was previously paid for a set number of posts made after an enrollment post (and/or enrollment time), made in a specific subset of sections, while wearing a specific signature until a specific time. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the OP was not paid until after he delivered his services, allowing the owner of the company he was advertising for to withhold payment if the quality of service was less then expected, which dilutes this kind of claim.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the OP was not paid until after he delivered his services, allowing the owner of the company he was advertising for to withhold payment if the quality of service was less then expected, which dilutes this kind of claim.

It is not so , what cause me to act this way is the behaviour of yahoo (became bossy and started abusing) while I accept that I messaged him 8x a week only once as I was feeling helpless and I was unable to open the sheet properly from my phone. The spreadsheet used to have payment info and I was unable to find sheet no. 2 in that spreadsheet, I already said him sorry but he was very rude. So are these guys Lutpin and Lauda. They relate ban evasion with scamming . I waited and enough is enough. Now I have left them the feedbacks they deserve. He removed me from Byteball signature campaign due to the talk between us and no other reason. I do not know why do they take job if can not handle people. He could simply ask not to message me.

They should remember that they reside on the same earth where we do. You will be respected if you love people and not hate them . Do not categorize every single guy in the same category .

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the OP was not paid until after he delivered his services, allowing the owner of the company he was advertising for to withhold payment if the quality of service was less then expected, which dilutes this kind of claim.

It is not so , what cause me to act this way is the behaviour of yahoo (became bossy and started abusing) while I accept that I messaged him 8x a week only once as I was feeling helpless and I was unable to open the sheet properly from my phone. The spreadsheet used to have payment info and I was unable to find sheet no. 2 in that spreadsheet, I already said him sorry but he was very rude. So are these guys Lutpin and Lauda. They relate ban evasion with scamming . I waited and enough is enough. Now I have left them the feedbacks they deserve. He removed me from Byteball signature campaign due to the talk between us and no other reason. I do not know why do they take job if can not handle people. He could simply ask not to message me.

They should remember that they reside on the same earth where we do. You will be respected if you love people and not hate them . Do not categorize every single guy in the same category .

So you were not paid at all? Regardless of if you were paid after the fact, or if you did not receive payment, neither is the basis of a negative rating.

Uh, yes, negative trust is meant for anyone who has scammed someone, who has attempted to scam someone, or who is believed to be a scammer:

That's not true and you know it. If that were the case then why did you post each of these feedbacks, none of which stating that the user was a scammer or was believed to be:And my personal favorite:You were right for tagging that guy. What sort of a lowlife would deceive another party in a deal by acting as both a part of the deal and the escrow?

You tagged these people using the trust system because you do not trust them, as you explicitly said in several of your ratings. This is no different to what Lauda or Lutpin is doing in my opinion. Please stop holding people do a double standard simply just because you dislike them, it's obvious and is extremely childish.

Uh, yes, negative trust is meant for anyone who has scammed someone, who has attempted to scam someone, or who is believed to be a scammer:

That's not true and you know it. If that were the case then why did you post each of these feedbacks, none of which stating that the user was a scammer or was believed to be:And my personal favorite:You were right for tagging that guy. What sort of a lowlife would deceive another party in a deal by acting as both a part of the deal and the escrow?

You tagged these people using the trust system because you do not trust them, as you explicitly said in several of your ratings. This is no different to what Lauda or Lutpin is doing in my opinion. Please stop holding people do a double standard simply just because you dislike them, it's obvious and is extremely childish.

If its "childish" then I must not have gotten feedbacks after I left them . This is indeed true and this is the case . If you follow the forum , them why are you escaping this one ? Unless you accept, no one can make you understand this .